Positives Of The Union

[JeMeSouviens]

Sorry to chime in here but the SNP done the very same thing, they told all that oil would trade at $133 a barrel and everything would be rosey!

It traded at less than half that price and Scotland's economy would have been devastated by it. Granted we could survive but severe cuts would have been made to public spending but that's ok in your book, everyone else are big fat liars deceiving the public but definitely not the SNP.

Iirc the white paper used $110/barrel, which was on the conservative side of consensus at the time. Albeit it turned out to be pish. More risk could have been acknowledged but it wasn’t known to be blatantly untrue at the time.

[Slavers]

Iirc the white paper used $110/barrel, which was on the conservative side of consensus at the time. Albeit it turned out to be pish. More risk could have been acknowledged but it wasn’t known to be blatantly untrue at the time.

I stand corrected with the price but the point is the same the SNP had a lot of pish in their white paper to try and get independence pushed over the line.

For some that's ok but no one else can mislead the public.

[Fife-Hibee]

Sorry to chime in here but the SNP done the very same thing, they told all that oil would trade at $133 a barrel and everything would be rosey!

It traded at less than half that price and Scotland's economy would have been devastated by it. Granted we could survive but severe cuts would have been made to public spending but that's ok in your book, everyone else are big fat liars deceiving the public but definitely not the SNP.

There's a difference between flat out lying and economic projections not panning out as expected as a result of international politics. The SNPs projections in the white paper were conservative estimates compared to the OECD and the UK Governent projections. So it's not remotely comparable, no matter how hard you try.

As for your second part, this is nonsense. The oil market is volatile. Countries who rely more on it borrow more when it isn't doing well and make up for those borrowings when it is doing well. Other countries (who own their own oil fields) set up an oil fund for a rainy day. Something Scotland never even got the opportunity to do.

Central London did well though.

[Fife-Hibee]

I stand corrected with the price but the point is the same the SNP had a lot of pish in their white paper to try and get independence pushed over the line.

For some that's ok but no one else can mislead the public.

Really, what was this other "pish" that you read in the white paper?

[Slavers]

There's a difference between flat out lying and economic projections not panning out as expected as a result of international politics. The SNPs projections in the white paper were conservative estimates compared to the OECD and the UK Governent projections. So it's not remotely comparable, no matter how hard you try.

As for your second part, this is nonsense. The oil market is volatile. Countries who rely more on it borrow more when it isn't doing well and make up for those borrowings when it is doing well. Other countries (who own their own oil fields) set up an oil fund for a rainy day. Something Scotland never even got the opportunity to do.

Central London did well though.

My whole point is all politicians talk ***** and will lie or make false predictions all designed to get their own way.

The SNP are no different from any other of bunch of lying politicians.

[Slavers]

Really, what was this other "pish" that you read in the white paper?

I just said the pipe dream based on oil price predictions that were a lot of pish.

[Fife-Hibee]

My whole point is all politicians talk ***** and will lie or make false predictions all designed to get their own way.

The SNP are no different from any other of bunch of lying politicians.


I just said the pipe dream based on oil price predictions that were a lot of pish.

Their oil predictions were credible at the time and backed up by every major economic institution.

I'll tell you what isn't credible though. "The oil wells are going to dry up in a few years time." There was absolutely no statistical or evidential basis for such a statement. Yet it was used anyway by the Better Together campaign.

[Just Alf]

I just said the pipe dream based on oil price predictions that were a lot of pish.So if I'm reading this right, you're specifically castigating the SNP for using UK Gov oil price predictions? I'd understand if they'd used the top end limit as gospel, you'd have a good point that they were deliberately over egging the pudding.



Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

https://www.facebook.com/612455383/posts/10161861257580384/

[Slavers]

Their oil predictions were credible at the time and backed up by every major economic institution.

I'll tell you what isn't credible though. "The oil wells are going to dry up in a few years time." There was absolutely no statistical or evidential basis for such a statement. Yet it was used anyway by the Better Together campaign.

I never heard anyone saying the oil wells were going to dry up as part of the better together campaign?

Do you have any evidence?

Furthermore, the fact is that the SNP white paper was misleading intentionally or not. I'd say there would be enough people to advise about a potential oil price drop but they would have been hushed by the vested interest groups including the SNP.

Oil has stayed low in price for years now and there is a glut in supply, I don't see the price ever rising to the highs off the past unless there is war.

But oh how the SNP based their funding on a figure that turned out to be so wide of the mark it would have devastated Scotland's economy.

Maybe that level of hardship for our nation wpuld have you changing your identity like you claimed before.

Thankfully we all dodged that bullet but never once have you thanked us canny Scots that voted No and saving us from financial ruin.

It does not cross your mind to say hey guys, that thing about the oil I know we ****ed up but thank you for seeing through all the pish I could not.

Anyway you are welcome, don't mention it.

[weecounty hibby]

I stand corrected with the price but the point is the same the SNP had a lot of pish in their white paper to try and get independence pushed over the line.

For some that's ok but no one else can mislead the public.
At least there was a white paper. The brexiteers only had the side of a bus and no other ****ing idea about what would happen if they won. Guess what the bus was a load of crap as well. So there were mistakes in the independence white paper, at least the SNP had the decency to produce one. Brexit has been the worst thought out, worst planned, worst executed piece of work ever conducted by a government at any time anywhere in the world. It makes banana republics look well run

[Fife-Hibee]

I never heard anyone saying the oil wells were going to dry up as part of the better together campaign?

Do you have any evidence?

Furthermore, the fact is that the SNP white paper was misleading intentionally or not. I'd say there would be enough people to advise about a potential oil price drop but they would have been hushed by the vested interest groups including the SNP.

Oil has stayed low in price for years now and there is a glut in supply, I don't see the price ever rising to the highs off the past unless there is war.

But oh how the SNP based their funding on a figure that turned out to be so wide of the mark it would have devastated Scotland's economy.

Maybe that level of hardship for our nation wpuld have you changing your identity like you claimed before.

Thankfully we all dodged that bullet but never once have you thanked us canny Scots that voted No and saving us from financial ruin.

It does not cross your mind to say hey guys, that thing about the oil I know we ****ed up but thank you for seeing through all the pish I could not.

Anyway you are welcome, don't mention it.

Are you honestly suggesting that the SNP "hushed up" major economic institutions, including the English based ones? :faf: I suppose next you're going to tell me that the mighty SNP twisted the arm of these economic bodies to give favourable predictions? :greengrin

Perhaps it's about time we dropped the "canny" label. If we were so canny, we wouldn't be over 200 billion pounds out of pocket thanks to oil sponsored UK vanity projects over the past several decades.

[Slavers]

Are you honestly suggesting that the SNP "hushed up" major economic institutions, including the English based ones? :faf: I suppose next you're going to tell me that the mighty SNP twisted the arm of these economic bodies to give favourable predictions? :greengrin

Perhaps it's about time we dropped the "canny" label. If we were so canny, we wouldn't be over 200 billion pounds out of pocket thanks to oil sponsored UK vanity projects over the past several decades.

No if you read my post again i am saying that there would have been enough people to advise on a potential oil price drop but the SNP along with other vested interest groups would want the threat ignored.

For example if you hold oil or oil stocks then are you going to tell the world the price might half? No your not.

From the SNP point of view how could they pay for all their promises if they didn't actually have the money unless oil traded at $110 a barrel? They couldn't.

The point is $110 a barrel was alot of pish and the SNP put it in their White paper.

Did it have the potential to harm Scotland? Yes it did massively.

So it's just sheer brass neckedness to point the fingers at others when your own leaders almost led us off a cliff and would do so again without batting an eye lid.

[Fife-Hibee]

No if you read my post again i am saying that there would have been enough people to advise on a potential oil price drop but the SNP along with other vested interest groups would want the threat ignored.

For example if you hold oil or oil stocks then are you going to tell the world the price might half? No your not.

From the SNP point of view how could they pay for all their promises if they didn't actually have the money unless oil traded at $110 a barrel? They couldn't.

The point is $110 a barrel was alot of pish and the SNP put it in their White paper.

Did it have the potential to harm Scotland? Yes it did massively.

So it's just sheer brass neckedness to point the fingers at others when your own leaders almost led us off a cliff and would do so again without batting an eye lid.

But hud oan a minute.... If we can't trust the Scottish Government because of their oil price predictions. Then how can we trust a UK Government who got the predictions even more wrong?

Over 2 trillion national UK debt aside...... How can we trust the UK Government to be more economically competent when their own predictions are so far off the mark?

Surely we should trust the government who was closer in their predictions, no?

[Jack]

My whole point is all politicians talk ***** and will lie or make false predictions all designed to get their own way.

The SNP are no different from any other of bunch of lying politicians.

But it wasn't the politicians that made the original statement about the price of oil. It was the UK Civil Service, as well as other independent sources that provided the figures.

Anyway as a better together person you really need to keep up with the latest narrative.

It's no longer fashionable to suggest that Scotland wouldn't have any oil at any price but because it's a fossil fuel no-one will want to buy it!

Or, if you're a Extinction Rebellion Scotland Unionist, an independent Scottish Government should just leave it in the ground.

Do keep up.

[Crunchie]

At least there was a white paper. The brexiteers only had the side of a bus and no other ****ing idea about what would happen if they won. Guess what the bus was a load of crap as well. So there were mistakes in the independence white paper, at least the SNP had the decency to produce one. Brexit has been the worst thought out, worst planned, worst executed piece of work ever conducted by a government at any time anywhere in the world. It makes banana republics look well run

The people of the United Kingdom were asked a question, they answered it quite emphatically.

A lot of people didn't like the outcome and are now throwing the toys out the pram. I think the snp have acted quite deplorably in their own self interest and it will backfire on them big time.

[1875godsgift]

The people of the United Kingdom were asked a question, they answered it quite emphatically.

A lot of people didn't like the outcome and are now throwing the toys out the pram. I think the snp have acted quite deplorably in their own self interest and it will backfire on them big time.

The people of Scotland we're asked a question and they answered it quite emphatically too.
Surely the Scottish government should be acting in their interest?

[Crunchie]

The people of Scotland we're asked a question and they answered it quite emphatically too.
Surely the Scottish government should be acting in their interest?

The people of Scotland were asked a question as part of the United Kingdom, it has nothing to do with the Scottish Parliament.

The people of Scotland were asked the question in 2014, to my disappointment it was rejected. That should be the end of the matter for at least a generation.

[Bristolhibby]

I never heard anyone saying the oil wells were going to dry up as part of the better together campaign?

Do you have any evidence?

Furthermore, the fact is that the SNP white paper was misleading intentionally or not. I'd say there would be enough people to advise about a potential oil price drop but they would have been hushed by the vested interest groups including the SNP.

Oil has stayed low in price for years now and there is a glut in supply, I don't see the price ever rising to the highs off the past unless there is war.

But oh how the SNP based their funding on a figure that turned out to be so wide of the mark it would have devastated Scotland's economy.

Maybe that level of hardship for our nation wpuld have you changing your identity like you claimed before.

Thankfully we all dodged that bullet but never once have you thanked us canny Scots that voted No and saving us from financial ruin.

It does not cross your mind to say hey guys, that thing about the oil I know we ****ed up but thank you for seeing through all the pish I could not.

Anyway you are welcome, don't mention it.

Links

UK 'needs more home-grown energy'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-27435624

http://www.businessforscotland.com/10-facts-about-scotlands-oil-and-independence/

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2754728/SIR-IAN-WOOD-Why-Salmonds-wrong-Scotlands-oil-Its-running-faster-thinks-says-British-billionaire-built-North-Sea-fortune-makes-impassioned-plea-save-union.html

Just doing a quick google for 2014 articles. There were loads about the oil running out.

Then after the referendum, shock, new fields opening up.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-46222275

https://gcaptain.com/cnooc-makes-major-new-oil-discovery-in-north-sea-off-scotland/

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jan/29/discovery-of-biggest-uk-gas-field-in-a-decade-glengorm-north-sea


J

[Crunchie]

With lots of negative threads about what’s going on at the moment thought it might be interesting to hear positives of Scotland being in the union. Regardless of your views on independence it would be churlish to pretend there aren’t any positives to the union.

I just want to hear the positives, plenty of other threads to bring up the negatives. Hopefully we can at least make it past page 1 before the petty point scoring and thread being dragged off course.

So, I’ll open the floor to everyone, particularly keen to hear from our pro unionists.

Free prescription charges.

[Moulin Yarns]

Free prescription charges.

Well, that will bring you a few interesting replies 😂

[The Modfather]

The people of the United Kingdom were asked a question, they answered it quite emphatically.

A lot of people didn't like the outcome and are now throwing the toys out the pram. I think the snp have acted quite deplorably in their own self interest and it will backfire on them big time.

Whether you agree with independence or not it’s indisputable that Brexit is a game changer that makes having a second referendum a valid debate to have. The fact the SNP were once more voted into power on an Independence ticket is why they are the ones leading the debate, but won’t necessarily be the party in power in an independent Scotland.

[Fife-Hibee]

The people of the United Kingdom were asked a question, they answered it quite emphatically.

A lot of people didn't like the outcome and are now throwing the toys out the pram. I think the snp have acted quite deplorably in their own self interest and it will backfire on them big time.

Quite emphatically? By emphatic, do you mean around 37% of the electorate? 26.4% of the UK population?

In what way have the SNP "acted quite deplorably"? They did everything they could to allow the Scottish Government to have a say in the brexit negotiations and were locked out at every turn. It's not the SNP or the Scottish Government that have acted deplorably as you well know.


The people of Scotland were asked a question as part of the United Kingdom, it has nothing to do with the Scottish Parliament.

The people of Scotland were asked the question in 2014, to my disappointment it was rejected. That should be the end of the matter for at least a generation.

Just how long is a generation in your view?

If Scotland now decides it wants independence, then you could argue that there has been a generational shift.

[RyeSloan]

Quite emphatically? By emphatic, do you mean around 37% of the electorate? 26.4% of the UK population?

Do you want to apply that logic to every vote or just ones you don’t like the outcome of?

For fun you could apply it to the last SG elections and see if you get a figure of what percentage of the electorate voting for pro Indy parties. We will then be able to assess just how emphatic their democratic mandate is for continuing to push for it....

[G B Young]

Quite emphatically? By emphatic, do you mean around 37% of the electorate? 26.4% of the UK population?

In what way have the SNP "acted quite deplorably"? They did everything they could to allow the Scottish Government to have a say in the brexit negotiations and were locked out at every turn. It's not the SNP or the Scottish Government that have acted deplorably as you well know.



Just how long is a generation in your view?

If Scotland now decides it wants independence, then you could argue that there has been a generational shift.

IIRC the turnout for the Brexit referendum was comfortably over 70% of the electorate, which was higher than the 2017 General Election, so there's no real mileage in claiming that the result was not a decent reflection of public opinion. FWIW the most recent Scottish Parliamentary elections only attracted something like 55% of the Scottish electorate so arguably less of an accurate reflection of opinion in Scotland. Referencing 26.4% of the UK population doesn't really wash either, bearing in mind that millions of those people are not of voting age. Bottom line, the Brexit result may not have been emphatic, but was decisive (ie it produced a definite result).

A generation is generally reckoned to be 25 years, which sounds about right to me in terms of having another independence referendum :wink: Salmond's exact words back in 2014 were "In my view this is a once in a generation - perhaps even once in a lifetime - opportunity" so he clearly felt it was a long-term thing. But judging by the reaction of yes voters to the result you'd have thought a generation lasted about an hour...

[Callum_62]

IIRC the turnout for the Brexit referendum was comfortably over 70% of the electorate, which was higher than the 2017 General Election, so there's no real mileage in claiming that the result was not a decent reflection of public opinion. FWIW the most recent Scottish Parliamentary elections only attracted something like 55% of the Scottish electorate so arguably less of an accurate reflection of opinion in Scotland. Referencing 26.4% of the UK population doesn't really wash either, bearing in mind that millions of those people are not of voting age. Bottom line, the Brexit result may not have been emphatic, but was decisive (ie it produced a definite result).

A generation is generally reckoned to be 25 years, which sounds about right to me in terms of having another independence referendum :wink: Salmond's exact words back in 2014 were "In my view this is a once in a generation - perhaps even once in a lifetime - opportunity" so he clearly felt it was a long-term thing. But judging by the reaction of yes voters to the result you'd have thought a generation lasted about an hour...

But the SNP were voted back in with a clear policy on indy ref 2 explicitly referencing Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will

That's what should really matter

This nonsense about WM saying no makes a mockery of this union of equals

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

[JeMeSouviens]

Do you want to apply that logic to every vote or just ones you don’t like the outcome of?

For fun you could apply it to the last SG elections and see if you get a figure of what percentage of the electorate voting for pro Indy parties. We will then be able to assess just how emphatic their democratic mandate is for continuing to push for it....

:agree: This fad of counting non-voters or expressing results as percentages of the electorate does my head in. If you don't vote - you don't count!

[Callum_62]

:agree: This fad of counting non-voters or expressing results as percentages of the electorate does my head in. If you don't vote - you don't count!100%

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

Quite emphatically? By emphatic, do you mean around 37% of the electorate? 26.4% of the UK population?

In what way have the SNP "acted quite deplorably"? They did everything they could to allow the Scottish Government to have a say in the brexit negotiations and were locked out at every turn. It's not the SNP or the Scottish Government that have acted deplorably as you well know.



Just how long is a generation in your view?

If Scotland now decides it wants independence, then you could argue that there has been a generational shift.

The problem with the 'once in a generation' quotes is that it didn't say generations of what. Elephants? Ants? Mayfly? 😉

[Ozyhibby]

Arguing about figures for oil production or price etc is pointless. Both sides will always be able to produce figures that suit their agenda.
Instead, it’s better to just ask yourself if there is anything unique about Scotland that it can’t do what Ireland does? Ask yourself why is Ireland richer than Scotland? Are they just better than us? Do they have more natural resources than us? The biggest difference I can see is that they are an independent country and Scotland is not. And Scotland is poorer for it.
Arguing about oil etc is exactly what unionists want.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Slavers]

Arguing about figures for oil production or price etc is pointless. Both sides will always be able to produce figures that suit their agenda.
Instead, it’s better to just ask yourself if there is anything unique about Scotland that it can’t do what Ireland does? Ask yourself why is Ireland richer than Scotland? Are they just better than us? Do they have more natural resources than us? The biggest difference I can see is that they are an independent country and Scotland is not. And Scotland is poorer for it.
Arguing about oil etc is exactly what unionists want.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are you forgetting

UK lent Ireland £3.2bn as part of bailout in 2010 with final repayment due in March 2021. ... The latest report from the British treasury says Ireland has now paid theUK £358 million in interest since 2011. Since June 2014, the UK exchequer has received an interest payment of around £42 million every six months.

[Ozyhibby]

Are you forgetting

UK lent Ireland £3.2bn as part of bailout in 2010 with final repayment due in March 2021. ... The latest report from the British treasury says Ireland has now paid theUK £358 million in interest since 2011. Since June 2014, the UK exchequer has received an interest payment of around £42 million every six months.

So Ireland borrowed money and is paying it all back with interest? Wow.
Lucky the UK never borrows money.[emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Slavers]

So Ireland borrowed money and is paying it all back with interest? Wow.
Lucky the UK never borrows money.[emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are claiming Ireland is richer than Scotland, yet it was Scotland - part of the UK that bailed Ireland out of Bankruptcy and Ireland are still paying this debt back to the UK.

[JeMeSouviens]

You are claiming Ireland is richer than Scotland, yet it was Scotland - part of the UK that bailed Ireland out of Bankruptcy and Ireland are still paying this debt back to the UK.

Ireland's debt as % of GDP - 64.8%
UK's debt as % of GDP - 85.4%

2018 figures.

[Moulin Yarns]

You are claiming Ireland is richer than Scotland, yet it was Scotland - part of the UK that bailed Ireland out of Bankruptcy and Ireland are still paying this debt back to the UK.

While at the same time baling out RBS, LLoyds Banking Group, letting Northern Rock go under. It is what happens when bankers get off scot free.

[Slavers]

Ireland's debt as % of GDP - 64.8%
UK's debt as % of GDP - 85.4%

2018 figures.

It's the ability to service our debt what matters most. Thankfully Scotland being part of the UK we can service our debts and have a lender of last resort in the Bank of England unlike Ireland.

[JeMeSouviens]

It's the ability to service our debt what matters most. Thankfully Scotland through being part of the UK can service their debts and also have a lender of last resort in the Bank of England unlike Ireland.

So can Ireland + has the ECB.

So could Scotland + would transition to our own central bank or the ECB.

[Moulin Yarns]

It's the ability to service our debt what matters most. Thankfully Scotland through being part of the UK can service their debts and also have a lender of last resort in the Bank of England unlike Ireland.

Are you forgetting the claims by James310 that Scotland could not join the EU because we wouldn't have a lender of last resort, so how can Ireland be in the Eu without one?

And also are you forgetting the bank of Ireland?

[JeMeSouviens]

Are you forgetting the claims by James310 that Scotland could not join the EU because we wouldn't have a lender of last resort, so how can Ireland be in the Eu without one?

And also are you forgetting the bank of Ireland?

The Bank of Ireland is a commercial bank. Ireland's central bank is the ECB because they're in the €.

[ronaldo7]

The Bank of Ireland is a commercial bank. Ireland's central bank is the ECB because they're in the €.

They maybe still use the Punt where slavers frequents.:faf:

[Ozyhibby]

It's the ability to service our debt what matters most. Thankfully Scotland being part of the UK we can service our debts and have a lender of last resort in the Bank of England unlike Ireland.

Those percentages relate directly to the two countries ability to service their debt.[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Slavers]

Those percentages relate directly to the two countries ability to service their debt.[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hehe ok i think you might have got me there! I'll stop slavering.

[Saturday Boy]

Benefits of the Union?

Jonathan Pearce.

In an independent Scotland we would probably have our own broadcasting service and would miss out on his impartiality and all round erudition.

BBC sports coverage annoys me even more than Question Time.

[Fife-Hibee]

IIRC the turnout for the Brexit referendum was comfortably over 70% of the electorate, which was higher than the 2017 General Election, so there's no real mileage in claiming that the result was not a decent reflection of public opinion. FWIW the most recent Scottish Parliamentary elections only attracted something like 55% of the Scottish electorate so arguably less of an accurate reflection of opinion in Scotland. Referencing 26.4% of the UK population doesn't really wash either, bearing in mind that millions of those people are not of voting age. Bottom line, the Brexit result may not have been emphatic, but was decisive (ie it produced a definite result).

A generation is generally reckoned to be 25 years, which sounds about right to me in terms of having another independence referendum :wink: Salmond's exact words back in 2014 were "In my view this is a once in a generation - perhaps even once in a lifetime - opportunity" so he clearly felt it was a long-term thing. But judging by the reaction of yes voters to the result you'd have thought a generation lasted about an hour...



I'm not saying the result shouldn't stand. I just think "emphatic" is pushing it somewhat.

[Fife-Hibee]

You are claiming Ireland is richer than Scotland, yet it was Scotland - part of the UK that bailed Ireland out of Bankruptcy and Ireland are still paying this debt back to the UK.

Was this before or after the 500 billion pound bailout package for UK banks? :cb

[RyeSloan]

Arguing about figures for oil production or price etc is pointless. Both sides will always be able to produce figures that suit their agenda.
Instead, it’s better to just ask yourself if there is anything unique about Scotland that it can’t do what Ireland does? Ask yourself why is Ireland richer than Scotland? Are they just better than us? Do they have more natural resources than us? The biggest difference I can see is that they are an independent country and Scotland is not. And Scotland is poorer for it.
Arguing about oil etc is exactly what unionists want.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I assume you mean GDP per capita when you say Ireland is richer? If so then it’s not a sound figure due to the afore mentioned multi nationals that are based there.

Ireland is though a very interesting case of what happens to a small independent country inside the Euro.

It has a a huge boom as its economy over heated massively due to interest rates set in Germany for Germany.

The bust when it came was huge. Austerity on a grand scale. 10% of gdp cut from government spending. To put that in perspective the same year the Tories and Osbourne were being pilloried for ‘too much too soon’ when cutting £6.5bn, Ireland was cutting the equivalent of £150bn!

Public sector wages were cut 15%, taxes went up across the board, unemployment soared well into double digits with it being over 30% for under 30’s. Vast swathes of home owners were mired in negative equity.

The scale of the pain was unprecedented (outside of Iceland which basically wiped out every single one of their residents savings overnight).

And yer here we are 10 years on and Ireland is back in the boom cycle and it being quoted as the poster child for an Indy Scotland.

[Jack]

Are you forgetting

UK lent Ireland £3.2bn as part of bailout in 2010 with final repayment due in March 2021. ... The latest report from the British treasury says Ireland has now paid theUK £358 million in interest since 2011. Since June 2014, the UK exchequer has received an interest payment of around £42 million every six months.

Another 'Promising Youngster' whose gone to 'First Team Regular' in less than a day on the back of a series of political posts.

Q. Are the Famous Five

A A series of books by Enid Blyton

B A Scotch midfield from the 60s

C Something to do with Hibs but I'm not quite sure what.

[RyeSloan]

Links

UK 'needs more home-grown energy'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-27435624

http://www.businessforscotland.com/10-facts-about-scotlands-oil-and-independence/

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2754728/SIR-IAN-WOOD-Why-Salmonds-wrong-Scotlands-oil-Its-running-faster-thinks-says-British-billionaire-built-North-Sea-fortune-makes-impassioned-plea-save-union.html

Just doing a quick google for 2014 articles. There were loads about the oil running out.

Then after the referendum, shock, new fields opening up.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-46222275

https://gcaptain.com/cnooc-makes-major-new-oil-discovery-in-north-sea-off-scotland/

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jan/29/discovery-of-biggest-uk-gas-field-in-a-decade-glengorm-north-sea


J

No one was saying that new fields would not be opened up post 2014.

What is a fact though is that North Sea production has continued to fall, exploration in the North Sea is near an all time low and proven recoverable reserves for the whole of the UK has dropped from about 9bn to 6bn boe.

There is a huge difference between proven and probable reserves and a huge difference between the oil being in place and it being economically viable to extract.

Estimating such things is clearly as much art as it is science but the nuances in the difference between the measures has been happily ignored and exploited by many.

That’s not to say that it is still not a valuable resource or that there is not still more oil to be found and extracted but the white paper figure of a recoverable 24bn barrels was never accurate and was at worst deliberately misleading.

[lord bunberry]

There’s no positives of the union. Since the union begun over 300 years ago Britain forced its will on pretty much every part of the world. Since then all the former colonies have found their own way in the world and that natural progression is the break up of the union that imposed these hardships on others for our own gain. The union is dead, just the same as the empire that died before it.

[Fife-Hibee]

I assume you mean GDP per capita when you say Ireland is richer? If so then it’s not a sound figure due to the afore mentioned multi nationals that are based there.

Ireland is though a very interesting case of what happens to a small independent country inside the Euro.

It has a a huge boom as its economy over heated massively due to interest rates set in Germany for Germany.

The bust when it came was huge. Austerity on a grand scale. 10% of gdp cut from government spending. To put that in perspective the same year the Tories and Osbourne were being pilloried for ‘too much too soon’ when cutting £6.5bn, Ireland was cutting the equivalent of £150bn!

Public sector wages were cut 15%, taxes went up across the board, unemployment soared well into double digits with it being over 30% for under 30’s. Vast swathes of home owners were mired in negative equity.

The scale of the pain was unprecedented (outside of Iceland which basically wiped out every single one of their residents savings overnight).

And yer here we are 10 years on and Ireland is back in the boom cycle and it being quoted as the poster child for an Indy Scotland.

So Irelands economy has booms and bumps like every other economy. At the very least, Scotland has access to resources that can limit the bumps when it isn't booming. You seem to be under the impression that the UK is somehow mysteriously immune to this cycle. Could it be that they've just delayed and delayed and delayed and ultimately when the bump does come, it'll be one heck of a thud? The UK can't just keep borrowing huge swathes of cash forever without consequence. It's going to bite them on the arse sooner or later.

[RyeSloan]

So Irelands economy has booms and bumps like every other economy. At the very least, Scotland has access to resources that can limit the bumps when it isn't booming. You seem to be under the impression that the UK is somehow mysteriously immune to this cycle. Could it be that they've just delayed and delayed and delayed and ultimately when the bump does come, it'll be one heck of a thud? The UK can't just keep borrowing huge swathes of cash forever without consequence. It's going to bite them on the arse sooner or later.

I’ve not assumed anything. I was simply pointing out how deep the bust was in Ireland and the huge downturn that it’s people suffered.

It’s relevant as I have spent years listening to many many people throw rocks at the Tories for their austerity yet I now see Ireland held as an example of what an Indy Scotland could be. Often by the same people or groups.

I find such positions quite interesting and to some degree at odds with each other so thought it worthwhile reminding people of the risks of what ‘being like Ireland’ could be.

As for the UK debt level, that’s a whole other debate which if ya fancy we can kick off a new thread on ;-). You are right though re the borrowing but hey don’t forget almost all the political parties want to borrow even more, the SNP have spent a decade complaining about austerity (which after all is measures to reduce government deficits) and the growth commission plans have some rapid borrowing baked into them as well.

But undoubtedly, as I pointed out much earlier in this thread, being part of the UK and the worlds 5th biggest economy gives Scotland substantial benefits in terms of the borrowing powers such a position provides to the UK government. Borrowing powers that have been used to prevent a huge bust in the UK economy and to prop up government spending and thus preventing the savage cuts that were seen in Ireland.

[southsider]

What a Union this is. Something to be proud of ? A Union that transported thousands of its country men, women and children away from their homelands to make way for sheep. A Union that let tens of thousannds starve to death whilst enjoying great wealth. A Union that stole millions of people from Africa and made them slaves. You dont get me i'm part of the Union.

[JeMeSouviens]

Another 'Promising Youngster' whose gone to 'First Team Regular' in less than a day on the back of a series of political posts.

Q. Are the Famous Five

A A series of books by Enid Blyton

B A Scotch midfield from the 60s

C Something to do with Hibs but I'm not quite sure what.

Just a name change: HomeTeam -> Slavers.

[Just Jimmy]

How can they say a driver is unfit days or even weeks after having a joint?you get swipped. if you fail you to to custody where you are tested further and they can analyse the evidential sample.

that level is compared to levels set for impairment impacting driving ability as is the case with alcohol.

if you are below at the time you pass if you are above you fail.



Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Fife-Hibee]

I’ve not assumed anything. I was simply pointing out how deep the bust was in Ireland and the huge downturn that it’s people suffered.

It’s relevant as I have spent years listening to many many people throw rocks at the Tories for their austerity yet I now see Ireland held as an example of what an Indy Scotland could be. Often by the same people or groups.

I find such positions quite interesting and to some degree at odds with each other so thought it worthwhile reminding people of the risks of what ‘being like Ireland’ could be.

As for the UK debt level, that’s a whole other debate which if ya fancy we can kick off a new thread on ;-). You are right though re the borrowing but hey don’t forget almost all the political parties want to borrow even more, the SNP have spent a decade complaining about austerity (which after all is measures to reduce government deficits) and the growth commission plans have some rapid borrowing baked into them as well.

But undoubtedly, as I pointed out much earlier in this thread, being part of the UK and the worlds 5th biggest economy gives Scotland substantial benefits in terms of the borrowing powers such a position provides to the UK government. Borrowing powers that have been used to prevent a huge bust in the UK economy and to prop up government spending and thus preventing the savage cuts that were seen in Ireland.

Difference is, the SNP want to borrow so they can invest and expand the economy to increase our domestic output. The tories on the other hand have to borrow, because they've flogged off too many national assets and industry and have ultimately shrunk the state down to a point where the country no longer outputs anywhere near what it has to borrow.

One of these methods is sustainable, the other quite clearly isn't.

[Just Jimmy]

i cant back this with figures but i would suggest Scotland doesn't produce the number of graduate level opportunities required in many fields.

from my group of 5 close mates who all went to Uni, we have 4 living outside Scotland.

from my partners group of 6, 5 moved outside Scotland and 2 of those moved outside the UK. the other 1 has since moved to London from her entry level job as there was a better opportunity to advance.

factor in that most of those also met and formed relationships with fellow graduates who moved with them or for their own reasons then you have approximately 20 from my closest experience who have left Scotland due to push pull factors of employment.

I understand this isn't scientific and that Scotland of course attracts graduates in the other direction, however I don't believe they will be in similar numbers as the opportunity in certain fields simply isn't there.





Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Killiehibbie]

you get swipped. if you fail you to to custody where you are tested further and they can analyse the evidential sample.

that level is compared to levels set for impairment impacting driving ability as is the case with alcohol.

if you are below at the time you pass if you are above you fail.



Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

What level of thc means you fail? Looking at the new measures coming in all i can see is a 'zero tolerance' approach.

[Just Jimmy]

What level of thc means you fail? Looking at the new measures coming in all i can see is a 'zero tolerance' approach.that's how it works just now in England. Zero tolerance won't work. there's levels for standard medication and being impaired. I don't know the levels from the top of my head as there are different levels for different drugs.



Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Smartie]

i cant back this with figures but i would suggest Scotland doesn't produce the number of graduate level opportunities required in many fields.

from my group of 5 close mates who all went to Uni, we have 4 living outside Scotland.

from my partners group of 6, 5 moved outside Scotland and 2 of those moved outside the UK. the other 1 has since moved to London from her entry level job as there was a better opportunity to advance.

factor in that most of those also met and formed relationships with fellow graduates who moved with them or for their own reasons then you have approximately 20 from my closest experience who have left Scotland due to push pull factors of employment.

I understand this isn't scientific and that Scotland of course attracts graduates in the other direction, however I don't believe they will be in similar numbers as the opportunity in certain fields simply isn't there.





Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

I don't see Scotland as a place of opportunity, Scotland as it stands is a bit of a graveyard.

Providing for our ageing population (not necessarily elderly) is where the opportunity here lies. We have a fairly prosperous "baby boomer" generation who want to have a good time, roll back the years with beauty/ cosmetics and have decent health care. If you can tap in to that, you might have opportunity.

I am in a line of work where I have attempted to bring various products to Scotland. One of our most recent ones is a global brand, a premium product targeted mainly at 20-30 year olds and it has experienced huge success all around the world. We've done just about ok with it in Edinburgh but miles short of how we expected it to do. The sad fact is that if you are that age in Scotland your career prospects are limited, you're probably either chucking all of your money away on rent or are trying to stick money by to get on the property ladder. We offer credit options - a huge number are rejected because of mainly issues surrounding moving address frequently but also basic income. I realise that this isn't unique to Scotland, but certainly there seems to be more enthusiasm, appetite and optimism in other cities down South.

You then have the crowded market where people are trying to get in about those grey pounds.

If I had my time again, the biggest change I would make would have been to leave Scotland upon graduation, and it is of great frustration to me that I am still here. The past decade has pretty much killed my optimism.

The demographics of the various votes are not a coincidence. Scotland isn't a bad retirement home so I can understand why our older folk don't want change. I also have no idea why any of our youngsters stay here whilst we have a decent passport that can take us to far better places around the globe, places with prospects.

[Killiehibbie]

that's how it works just now in England. Zero tolerance won't work. there's levels for standard medication and being impaired. I don't know the levels from the top of my head as there are different levels for different drugs.



Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
Zero tolerance for people caught driving with illegal drugs in their system.

Scotland’s stringent road safety laws will be strengthened further by the introduction of drug driving limits and roadside testing on 21 October this year.
There will be a zero tolerance approach to eight drugs most associated with illegal use, including cannabis, heroin and cocaine, with limits set at a level where any claims of accidental exposure can be ruled out.
Meanwhile, a list of other drugs associated with medical use will have limits based on impairment and risk to road safety.
This will make it easier to hold drug drivers to account as there will no longer be a requirement to prove that someone was driving in an impaired manner.
Regulations laid in the Scottish Parliament, subject to MSPs’ approval, will permit prosecutions where different drug types are found to be above specified levels.
Police Scotland, the Scottish Police Authority and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service have been making preparations and are on track for implementation in October.
Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf said:
“The introduction of drug driving limits will strengthen the power of Scotland’s police and prosecutors to tackle the minority of drivers who irresponsibly put themselves and other road-users at risk.
“Drug driving is completely unacceptable, and we will continue to use all of the tools at our disposal to prevent the avoidable deaths and damage caused by those who drive under the influence of drugs.
“Together with our stringent drink-driving limits, these new laws will ensure that Scotland has the UK’s most robust laws against impaired and unsafe driving.”
Chief Inspector Stephen Innes of Police Scotland said:
“Police Scotland is committed to reducing road casualties, and tackling drink and drug driving is a key focus of our activity. The devastating impact of drug driving on victims, communities and users themselves cannot be understated.
“This new legislation will significantly enhance our ability to detect and deter motorists engaging in this extremely risky driving behaviour.
“We are currently working closely with key partners and plans are well advanced to deliver this new legislation in October this year.”
Background
The drugs which will have a zero tolerance limit are benzoylecgonine; cocaine; delta–9–tetrahydrocannabinol (cannabis and cannabinol); ketamine; lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD); methylamphetamine; methylenedioxymethaphetamine (MDMA – ecstasy); and 6-monoacetylmorphine (6-MAM – heroin and diamorphine).
The drugs with medical uses which will have limits based on impairment are clonazepam; diazepam; flunitrazepam; lorazepam; methadone; morphine; oxazepam; and temazepam.
A separate approach will be taken to amphetamine, balancing its legitimate use for medical purposes against its abuse.
Any person taking medication in line with the prescription they have can claim the medical defence to the new offence. However, they can still be prosecuted under the existing impairment offence. If the prescription indicates that they should not drive while taking the medication then they are unable to claim the medical defence.Existing law makes it an offence to be in charge of a motor vehicle while unfit to drive through drink or drugs, with the penalties – reserved to Westminster – being a minimum 12-month driving ban, up to six months in prison and a fine of up to £5,000. The new offence of driving while above specified drug limits will operate alongside the current offence and carry with it the same maximum penalties.
Currently, when police suspect drug driving, they can carry out the roadside field impairment test. If the individual fails the test this provides sufficient evidence to arrest and take the driver to a police station for further tests. A doctor must certify that the person is, in their opinion, impaired to the extent that they are unfit to drive.
However, there are currently no prescribed limits for controlled drugs. The UK Government introduced provision in the Crime and Courts Act 2013 which made it an offence to drive under the influence of different drug types when over a specified limit. The ability to provide specified limits for drugs is devolved, and so it has been for Scottish Ministers to decide whether there should be specified limits and, if so, what level these should be and for what drug types.




Coming in a few months but no details on the specifics. Looking at cannabis in different American States they have a limit of up to 5 ng thc per ml of blood before a driver is considered impaired but all we are getting told is there will be zero tolerance.

[RyeSloan]

Difference is, the SNP want to borrow so they can invest and expand the economy to increase our domestic output. The tories on the other hand have to borrow, because they've flogged off too many national assets and industry and have ultimately shrunk the state down to a point where the country no longer outputs anywhere near what it has to borrow.

One of these methods is sustainable, the other quite clearly isn't.

You are mixing up your economics again but I’ll leave this here as your responses are rather tangential to my main point.

[Just Jimmy]

Zero tolerance for people caught driving with illegal drugs in their system.

Scotland’s stringent road safety laws will be strengthened further by the introduction of drug driving limits and roadside testing on 21 October this year.
There will be a zero tolerance approach to eight drugs most associated with illegal use, including cannabis, heroin and cocaine, with limits set at a level where any claims of accidental exposure can be ruled out.
Meanwhile, a list of other drugs associated with medical use will have limits based on impairment and risk to road safety.
This will make it easier to hold drug drivers to account as there will no longer be a requirement to prove that someone was driving in an impaired manner.
Regulations laid in the Scottish Parliament, subject to MSPs’ approval, will permit prosecutions where different drug types are found to be above specified levels.
Police Scotland, the Scottish Police Authority and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service have been making preparations and are on track for implementation in October.
Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf said:
“The introduction of drug driving limits will strengthen the power of Scotland’s police and prosecutors to tackle the minority of drivers who irresponsibly put themselves and other road-users at risk.
“Drug driving is completely unacceptable, and we will continue to use all of the tools at our disposal to prevent the avoidable deaths and damage caused by those who drive under the influence of drugs.
“Together with our stringent drink-driving limits, these new laws will ensure that Scotland has the UK’s most robust laws against impaired and unsafe driving.”
Chief Inspector Stephen Innes of Police Scotland said:
“Police Scotland is committed to reducing road casualties, and tackling drink and drug driving is a key focus of our activity. The devastating impact of drug driving on victims, communities and users themselves cannot be understated.
“This new legislation will significantly enhance our ability to detect and deter motorists engaging in this extremely risky driving behaviour.
“We are currently working closely with key partners and plans are well advanced to deliver this new legislation in October this year.”
Background
The drugs which will have a zero tolerance limit are benzoylecgonine; cocaine; delta–9–tetrahydrocannabinol (cannabis and cannabinol); ketamine; lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD); methylamphetamine; methylenedioxymethaphetamine (MDMA – ecstasy); and 6-monoacetylmorphine (6-MAM – heroin and diamorphine).
The drugs with medical uses which will have limits based on impairment are clonazepam; diazepam; flunitrazepam; lorazepam; methadone; morphine; oxazepam; and temazepam.
A separate approach will be taken to amphetamine, balancing its legitimate use for medical purposes against its abuse.
Any person taking medication in line with the prescription they have can claim the medical defence to the new offence. However, they can still be prosecuted under the existing impairment offence. If the prescription indicates that they should not drive while taking the medication then they are unable to claim the medical defence.Existing law makes it an offence to be in charge of a motor vehicle while unfit to drive through drink or drugs, with the penalties – reserved to Westminster – being a minimum 12-month driving ban, up to six months in prison and a fine of up to £5,000. The new offence of driving while above specified drug limits will operate alongside the current offence and carry with it the same maximum penalties.
Currently, when police suspect drug driving, they can carry out the roadside field impairment test. If the individual fails the test this provides sufficient evidence to arrest and take the driver to a police station for further tests. A doctor must certify that the person is, in their opinion, impaired to the extent that they are unfit to drive.
However, there are currently no prescribed limits for controlled drugs. The UK Government introduced provision in the Crime and Courts Act 2013 which made it an offence to drive under the influence of different drug types when over a specified limit. The ability to provide specified limits for drugs is devolved, and so it has been for Scottish Ministers to decide whether there should be specified limits and, if so, what level these should be and for what drug types.




Coming in a few months but no details on the specifics. Looking at cannabis in different American States they have a limit of up to 5 ng thc per ml of blood before a driver is considered impaired but all we are getting told is there will be zero tolerance.

that's how it works in England now.

why should there be a tolerance for illegal drugs, out of interest?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Mr Grieves]

i cant back this with figures but i would suggest Scotland doesn't produce the number of graduate level opportunities required in many fields.

from my group of 5 close mates who all went to Uni, we have 4 living outside Scotland.

from my partners group of 6, 5 moved outside Scotland and 2 of those moved outside the UK. the other 1 has since moved to London from her entry level job as there was a better opportunity to advance.

factor in that most of those also met and formed relationships with fellow graduates who moved with them or for their own reasons then you have approximately 20 from my closest experience who have left Scotland due to push pull factors of employment.

I understand this isn't scientific and that Scotland of course attracts graduates in the other direction, however I don't believe they will be in similar numbers as the opportunity in certain fields simply isn't there.





Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Is this a positive or negative?

We're part of a union that offers young people opportunities to work that are typically concentrated in one region of the UK, but at the same time is not providing opportunities closer to home. Oh, and removing the right to work in another 27 countries.

[Killiehibbie]

that's how it works in England now.

why should there be a tolerance for illegal drugs, out of interest?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk


If it's about road safety it should be impairment that is measured but if it's about banning and criminalising drivers, who are not impaired, this might be the way forward.

[Just Jimmy]

If it's about road safety it should be impairment that is measured but if it's about banning and criminalising drivers, who are not impaired, this might be the way forward.it is about impairment however, take away the driving factor, as it stands many of these drugs are illegal to use regardless.

the debate on that issue is for another thread, but that is the law as it stands.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Smartie]

that's how it works in England now.

why should there be a tolerance for illegal drugs, out of interest?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

I don't know much about the thresholds and the risks of passively absorbing certain drugs, but I'd have been a bit miffed to have been criminalised for an afternoon watching football through that pungent fog that used to gather under the roof of the old East.

[Just Jimmy]

Is this a positive or negative?

We're part of a union that offers young people opportunities to work that are typically concentrated in one region of the UK, but at the same time is not providing opportunities closer to home. Oh, and removing the right to work in another 27 countries.its a positive of the union atm that you can move 300 miles from home for work and build (in my case) a happy and successful life which provides further opportunity.

it's a negative for Scotland that it's often a push factor for employment rather than simply a pull factor for amazing jobs.

our graduates aren't moving for 50k starting jobs. they are moving for 20-30k salaries because they can't get a position in Scotland. it's not a scientific study as I said and I accept that. however it is definitely an issue.

it's less "middle class" (I hate that term) tax payers. it leaves an elderly population who require support from the state in many forms and a smaller younger generation who struggle financially to prepare for the future. this in turn means that in 30 years or so this generation will require even more support.

we need to find a way to keep our best and brightest as well as attracting from outside Scotland.



Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Just Jimmy]

I don't know much about the thresholds and the risks of passively absorbing certain drugs, but I'd have been a bit miffed to have been criminalised for an afternoon watching football through that pungent fog that used to gather under the roof of the old East.you wouldn't be. I'm not even convinced that would show up on a drugs wipe at the roadside.



Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Fife-Hibee]

I don't see Scotland as a place of opportunity, Scotland as it stands is a bit of a graveyard.

Providing for our ageing population (not necessarily elderly) is where the opportunity here lies. We have a fairly prosperous "baby boomer" generation who want to have a good time, roll back the years with beauty/ cosmetics and have decent health care. If you can tap in to that, you might have opportunity.

I am in a line of work where I have attempted to bring various products to Scotland. One of our most recent ones is a global brand, a premium product targeted mainly at 20-30 year olds and it has experienced huge success all around the world. We've done just about ok with it in Edinburgh but miles short of how we expected it to do. The sad fact is that if you are that age in Scotland your career prospects are limited, you're probably either chucking all of your money away on rent or are trying to stick money by to get on the property ladder. We offer credit options - a huge number are rejected because of mainly issues surrounding moving address frequently but also basic income. I realise that this isn't unique to Scotland, but certainly there seems to be more enthusiasm, appetite and optimism in other cities down South.

You then have the crowded market where people are trying to get in about those grey pounds.

If I had my time again, the biggest change I would make would have been to leave Scotland upon graduation, and it is of great frustration to me that I am still here. The past decade has pretty much killed my optimism.

The demographics of the various votes are not a coincidence. Scotland isn't a bad retirement home so I can understand why our older folk don't want change. I also have no idea why any of our youngsters stay here whilst we have a decent passport that can take us to far better places around the globe, places with prospects.

The young people who remain here do so because they believe something better is possible. Yes, many leave to further their careers in other countries and that's great for them individually. But many of us still believe Scotland has the potential for great things. We just need the political will to take full control of our countries future. Scotland being a cozy wee retirement home for people across the UK suits the status quo. The young people who remain here want to change that perception. They want to turn Scotland into a country of opportunity, not a residential backyard for British OAPs, which will stay that way as long as we're in the UK.

[Just Jimmy]

The young people who remain here do so because they believe something better is possible. Yes, many leave to further their careers in other countries and that's great for them individually. But many of us still believe Scotland has the potential for great things. We just need the political will to take full control of our countries future. Scotland being a cozy wee retirement home for people across the UK suits the status quo. The young people who remain here want to change that perception. They want to turn Scotland into a country of opportunity, not a residential backyard for British OAPs, which will stay that way as long as we're in the UK.that's all well and good; how long should they wait? 5 years puts a 25 year old at 30. 10 at 35.

it gets to a point where you trade your future for very little reward for some long touted dream which hasn't yet come around and with all due respect, may never - and even if it does, might not work for the better for a few generations if at all.

that's a lot to gamble regardless of your position on independence.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[weecounty hibby]

It depends on what you want really. I'm a senior manager with a major blue chip company that is the No1 globally in its industry. I started as an apprentice and have worked my way up through various levels of management doing various roles. I am now 50 and have been a manager for 22 years and senior for 3. Never went to uni and even if I did the chances are I wouldn't be any further in my career than I am now. There are 2 problems at the moment, 1 is that there seems to be a need for everyone to go to uni, this means that we have heaps of grads but not heaps of grad level roles, not just in Scotland. 2 is that people now want instant progression and instant success and if it doesn't happen will move and often move country, often to London. I've seen it happen in my own company, folk on the grad scheme think they have a divine right to progress quickly even wh n they are actually pretty poor at what they do. This problem is not unique to Scotland, the north of England has the same issues. I suppose what I'm saying is that Scotland has opportunities if people are prepared to work at it and don't expect overnight success.
Not sue if that actually answers any of the above though

[RyeSloan]

It depends on what you want really. I'm a senior manager with a major blue chip company that is the No1 globally in its industry. I started as an apprentice and have worked my way up through various levels of management doing various roles. I am now 50 and have been a manager for 22 years and senior for 3. Never went to uni and even if I did the chances are I wouldn't be any further in my career than I am now. There are 2 problems at the moment, 1 is that there seems to be a need for everyone to go to uni, this means that we have heaps of grads but not heaps of grad level roles, not just in Scotland. 2 is that people now want instant progression and instant success and if it doesn't happen will move and often move country, often to London. I've seen it happen in my own company, folk on the grad scheme think they have a divine right to progress quickly even wh n they are actually pretty poor at what they do. This problem is not unique to Scotland, the north of England has the same issues. I suppose what I'm saying is that Scotland has opportunities if people are prepared to work at it and don't expect overnight success.
Not sue if that actually answers any of the above though

A bit off topic I know but I recognise your comments re grads.

Some of them a brilliant and are prepared to work hard to progress. Others seem to think that 25 years experience in the industry counts for nothing and because they have a flash degree they are smarter than me and therefore struggle with the concept that actually I might know a thing or two about the work we are doing and how to go about it!

The push of so many young into universities without coordinating that move with the jobs and demands of the wider economy is an interesting topic that effects not just Scotland / UK ...although as I said probably well off topic so probably for another thread.

[Killiehibbie]

you wouldn't be. I'm not even convinced that would show up on a drugs wipe at the roadside.



Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

What about having a couple of joints on Saturday then failing a workplace drug test on Wednesday? That cost a guy I know his job and looks like this is the way the new law will work with no regard to actual impairment. Attitudes towards cannabis are changing in many places but it seems to be in the opposite direction here.

[Just Jimmy]

What about having a couple of joints on Saturday then failing a workplace drug test on Wednesday? That cost a guy I know his job and looks like this is the way the new law will work with no regard to actual impairment. Attitudes towards cannabis are changing in many places but it seems to be in the opposite direction here.cannabis is still illegal. debate around the rights and wrongs of that is another issue.

I assume your mate knew he could be subject to random tests as I don't know any companies who don't have it in their policies or contracts if they conduct it.

if you turned up hung over and obviously so or were smelling of alcohol you'd end up down that line too eventually and alcohol isn't illegal.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Just Jimmy]

It depends on what you want really. I'm a senior manager with a major blue chip company that is the No1 globally in its industry. I started as an apprentice and have worked my way up through various levels of management doing various roles. I am now 50 and have been a manager for 22 years and senior for 3. Never went to uni and even if I did the chances are I wouldn't be any further in my career than I am now. There are 2 problems at the moment, 1 is that there seems to be a need for everyone to go to uni, this means that we have heaps of grads but not heaps of grad level roles, not just in Scotland. 2 is that people now want instant progression and instant success and if it doesn't happen will move and often move country, often to London. I've seen it happen in my own company, folk on the grad scheme think they have a divine right to progress quickly even wh n they are actually pretty poor at what they do. This problem is not unique to Scotland, the north of England has the same issues. I suppose what I'm saying is that Scotland has opportunities if people are prepared to work at it and don't expect overnight success.
Not sue if that actually answers any of the above though
A bit off topic I know but I recognise your comments re grads.

Some of them a brilliant and are prepared to work hard to progress. Others seem to think that 25 years experience in the industry counts for nothing and because they have a flash degree they are smarter than me and therefore struggle with the concept that actually I might know a thing or two about the work we are doing and how to go about it!

The push of so many young into universities without coordinating that move with the jobs and demands of the wider economy is an interesting topic that effects not just Scotland / UK ...although as I said probably well off topic so probably for another thread.I agree with both posts to an extent.

the issues are 1. to get many entry level jobs now they want a degree as minimum which means many who aren't suitable for uni go. 2. that brings a shed load of debt so rather than instant gratification, it can often be a need to start earning. 3. you rarely can start a life on an entry salary so need to push on asap.

my old man started like you, bottom of ladder and worked his way to the top. no uni etc. however he was able to also buy a property on his modest salary early on. that's not open to many of my generation even with massive sacrifice.

I started at the bottom of my career despite being offered opportunities to move up quicker due to my education. I wanted to learn the job and earn it through graft and it's always stood me in good stead with my colleagues but that's my attitude to things.

it's a situation that there isn't always an obvious answer too.

as a whole, we need to get away from the idea that uni is the be all and end all as you end up with students with mountains of debt and no ability to earn or pay it back. and a degree is just a bit paper and has little use in the real world.

however we also need to capitalise on our good people.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Killiehibbie]

cannabis is still illegal. debate around the rights and wrongs of that is another issue.

I assume your mate knew he could be subject to random tests as I don't know any companies who don't have it in their policies or contacts if they conduct it.

if you turned up hung over and obviously so or were smelling of alcohol you'd end up down that line too eventually and alcohol isn't illegal.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk


The question was asked about the level and impairment to perform his duties and the answer given, as you have, that it's illegal and that's that. A bit of leeway and not sack/fine/jail everybody who tests positive but not actually under the influence would be a fairer way.

[Just Jimmy]

The question was asked about the level and impairment to perform his duties and the answer given, as you have, that it's illegal and that's that. A bit of leeway and not sack/fine/jail everybody who tests positive but not actually under the influence would be a fairer way.as I said the debate around the issues isn't a concern to me. however I'm sure if he had commit another crime he would also have been paid off. it's illegal and he'll have been told prior to employment in some form.

rules are rules and he didn't meet the terms of his employment by failing the test. if they have 100 employees and 1 fails the test is it fair on the other 99 who meet the terms, some of whom probably make sacrifices to do so.

to answer your question; the legal limit is the legal limit however companies can impose lower limits if it's in your contract or their terms. my limit is much lower than the legal limit.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Edinburgh has one of the best educated workforce’s in the UK. I don’t think we have to worry too much about a brain drain. People moving for work to England or wherever is not a bad thing. For every person that moves south there is one moving north to work here. That is a good thing.
And anyone who has a degree and chooses to work in Edinburgh will soon find there are plenty of career opportunities here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Killiehibbie]

as I said the debate around the issues isn't a concern to me. however I'm sure if he had commit another crime he would also have been paid off. it's illegal and he'll have been told prior to employment in some form.

rules are rules and he didn't meet the terms of his employment by failing the test. if they have 100 employees and 1 fails the test is it fair on the other 99 who meet the terms, some of whom probably make sacrifices to do so.

to answer your question; the legal limit is the legal limit however companies can impose lower limits if it's in your contract or their terms. my limit is much lower than the legal limit.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Alcohol was illegal in the states for a while how did that work out?

[Just Jimmy]

Alcohol was illegal in the states for a while how did that work out?as i said. the debate around the legality or otherwise isn't a concern to me.

under the current law and probably the terms of his employment, your mate committed gross misconduct.

anyway back to the original topic as this now has nout to do with positives or otherwise of the union. thanks for the discussion [emoji106]

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Just Jimmy]

Edinburgh has one of the best educated workforce’s in the UK. I don’t think we have to worry too much about a brain drain. People moving for work to England or wherever is not a bad thing. For every person that moves south there is one moving north to work here. That is a good thing.
And anyone who has a degree and chooses to work in Edinburgh will soon find there are plenty of career opportunities here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalkas I said, I don't have figures but i would very much doubt that it's 1:1 for leaving scotland and coming to Scotland.

there is work in some fields but it's also easy to say there's work in Edinburgh if you want it because Edinburgh is fast becoming too expensive for many people to live but that's another debate.

Scotland needs to get better at keeping it's young people

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

Edinburgh has one of the best educated workforce’s in the UK. I don’t think we have to worry too much about a brain drain. People moving for work to England or wherever is not a bad thing. For every person that moves south there is one moving north to work here. That is a good thing.
And anyone who has a degree and chooses to work in Edinburgh will soon find there are plenty of career opportunities here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The civil service within Scottish Government is rammed with English people and Northern Irish too. I don’t have the figures at hand but I would put my mortgage on them being over-represented proportionally. Same with NHS management in Scotland and I would be surprised if that didn’t extend further in government and non departmental public bodies.

Edinburgh and its environs are certainly attractive for those in the public sector.

[JeMeSouviens]

Unionist commentator Alex Massie in The Times. I quite like his stuff even though he’s obviously infused with the stuff of Tory posh boy.



How do you talk about the Union — and unionism — without seeming ridiculous? I ask this because it seems to me that this is something to which it appears neither Boris Johnson nor Jeremy Hunt has given much thought, and because this is a problem for unionism that matters rather more than the question of which of these men becomes the next prime minister.

It has become commonplace for Conservatives to blather on about “our precious Union”. I am afraid this is guff. It is not a piece of delicate china and every time I hear an English Tory politician talk about this “precious Union”, I’m afraid my instinctive reaction is to assume they know little — or even less than that — about what they are talking.

At least Hunt, however, gives the impression of being a unionist. Visiting Scotland last week he was asked whether unionism or Brexit was the greater priority and answered: “The Union every time.” That is not something Johnson could honestly say — though asking the former foreign secretary for honest views is a request subject to increasingly miserable returns — given his insistence that the UK must leave the EU by Halloween come what may, “do or die”. Johnson argues, against all the available evidence, that Scots will come to love Brexit.

This being so, it was little surprise last week when this newspaper reported that 53% of Scots might vote for independence if Johnson becomes prime minister. That remains a doubly hypothetical scenario, of course, but it is one that should give the Tories some pause for thought. There is a reason Ruth Davidson is in the “anyone but Boris” camp and also, therefore, a reason why she is, if not in despair, then very far from gruntled by the turn recent events have taken in her party.

Davidson’s despair is understandable. The Conservative and Unionist Party in Scotland is a unionist entity more than it is a Conservative one. They order matters differently south of the border where, according to an opinion poll published by The Times, 63% of Tory members would accept Scottish independence if that were the price required to achieve Brexit. With friends like these, Davidson has no need for enemies, and with polls like these, it’s no wonder many Scottish Tories feel themselves the last adherents to an old-time religion rejected by some of those they had previously considered co-keepers of the faith.

This is not an overnight development either. Rather it reflected a process of mental disengagement evident on both sides of the border. There is an impatience with Scotland in England and, increasingly, a sense that if the Jocks wish to bugger off, then perhaps it’s time they got on with it. It would be a sad end to an old song, but if that’s the way it is, then that’s the way it is.

No wonder, too, that you increasingly suspect the argument for independence is being made more forcefully in London than in Edinburgh these days. To adapt an old saw: Scotland isn’t leaving Britain, Britain is leaving Scotland. Well, perhaps. Independence would be an expensive business but so is Brexit, and there’s a very good reason unionists oppose a second independence referendum: they think, or at any rate they fear, they might lose it.

Here we may pause to note a certain irony: the reason Sturgeon has effectively parked the referendum question for the time being is that she too fears she might lose a plebiscite if it were held next year.

Both sides appreciate that the next referendum is for keeps and the risks of losing it currently outweigh the attractiveness of winning it. Hence the uneasy, phoney feel of Scottish politics just now. Everyone is waiting to see which way events tip the scales. Still, we too easily forget just how unusual a country the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland really is. It has a trinitarian quality; its component parts are necessarily distinct yet also — at least notionally — indivisible. That is, it exists as a coherent whole even as its parts enjoy their own particular and individual identities.

There are plenty of Scottish nationalists who scoff at this. The UK is, they maintain, a wholly invented tradition. A contrived idea whose time is up if, indeed, it ever had a time. There is some truth in this, even if acknowledging it also requires us to admit that Scotland, like England, is an imagined tradition and a manufactured identity, too.

But even if you allow that the UK, as an idea, was constructed in the centuries following the Union of the Crowns in 1603 and then, of course, parliamentary union in 1707, it bears mentioning that it is an idea significantly more ancient than the ideas, or imagined communities, that define most other countries. Indeed, the borders of Scotland were not finalised until 1472 when Orkney and Shetland were annexed by James III. Viewed through that historical prism — though others are available — Scotland has known Union for longer than a completed Scotland existed as an independent state, and the idea of Britain has existed for nearly as long as Scotland was a coherent entity in the centuries before Union.

And endurance is, in the end, the Union’s greatest strength and, perhaps, its greatest quality, too. The case for its preservation can be made on many grounds, but the firmest of these rests chiefly upon its antiquity. It is one of those permanent things that give a shape and a meaning to a society.

The classical Tory argument for it goes beyond mere utilitarianism, however. It recognises the importance of ancient ties and institutions hundreds of years in the making. These increase in value with age. It is, in one sense, a circular argument: the Union is valuable because it has endured and it endures because it is valuable.

Awkwardly, you can’t really put that on the side of a bus. Equally awkwardly, if the Union did not exist today there would, most likely, be precious few calls for creating it. But it does exist and for many Scots it remains a real and important presence in their lives and their sense of themselves. Something better felt than said, however, and therein lies unionism’s problem.

[Bristolhibby]

IIRC the turnout for the Brexit referendum was comfortably over 70% of the electorate, which was higher than the 2017 General Election, so there's no real mileage in claiming that the result was not a decent reflection of public opinion. FWIW the most recent Scottish Parliamentary elections only attracted something like 55% of the Scottish electorate so arguably less of an accurate reflection of opinion in Scotland. Referencing 26.4% of the UK population doesn't really wash either, bearing in mind that millions of those people are not of voting age. Bottom line, the Brexit result may not have been emphatic, but was decisive (ie it produced a definite result).

A generation is generally reckoned to be 25 years, which sounds about right to me in terms of having another independence referendum :wink: Salmond's exact words back in 2014 were "In my view this is a once in a generation - perhaps even once in a lifetime - opportunity" so he clearly felt it was a long-term thing. But judging by the reaction of yes voters to the result you'd have thought a generation lasted about an hour...



It matters not one jot what Salmond said in 2014.

We are talking about here and now in post BREXIT referendum 2019.

Independence supporting parties keep getting elected. There’s your mandate.

J

[Weegreenman]

One benefit must be the great road network that’s been built to connect our Towns & Cities . :greengrin